National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1887-07-01

vote Of not less three TO one. That would
have taken off $50, 100000. A bill to place
sugar on the free list would have passed by
a large majority, which would have taken
s50.O00,000 more from the revenue. But
the majority would not permit the consid.
Grafton Of either Of these measures.
IL Is nonsense or worse for Democratic
papers to talk about what the Republicans
Of the House did There were 40 Repub-
licans and 1856 Democrats In the House, with
a Democratic speaker, and every commit
tee with Democratic majority. Utter
imbecility is the only plea that can be en-
tered for failure on the part OF the Demo
Gratis to consider and pass revenue meas
ures.
The effort to hold the minority Republi-
cans in the House responsible is misera-
able failure, as is also the claim that the
Senate, being Republican,, no reduction
could be made. This is not true, and II IL
were true makes no excuse for the Demo-
crate. They passed no bill in the House,
and the Senate could not originate one.
President Cleveland said the subject
would have to be "appronched in patri-
otic spirit OF devotion to the interests OF
the entire country" That, the Democrats
could not do, they could not rise that high,
and hence their failure to enact any law re-
ducing the revenue.
II is time this talk in Democratic aud as
sistant Democratic papers about the Re-
publlcans preventing legislation or about
Republican responsibility for the financial
condition should cease, or at least its
falsity be exposed. The petty sectiona'-
ism of the Democratic politicians who con-
trolled the last and probably will the next
House OF Representatives total In
ability to comprehend the magnitude OF
the question, or the danger threatened
prevented legislation
The Democrats OF tho House were not
bound to fellow President Cleveland's or
Secretary Manning's suggestions or recon-
mendatlons as to how the revenues were to
bo reduced They were bound TO consider
the "information' furulshed them as reli-
able. They did neither, at least they acted
as II they did not, and the country will hold
the Democratic party responsible. Special
pleading will not relieve them from this re-
sponsibllity, for they are being tried In the
court OF common sense with the American
public as jury.
The NATIONAL REPUBLICAN, in view of
the facts stated calmly, seriously aud pa
triotically invites the attention of the Presi-
dent to the law passed in 1869, which is the
law to-day, and as binding now as then
upon him by the constitution, which de-
clares that he "shall see TO II that the laws
are faithfully executed" II the President
doubts his power under that law to redeem
bonds at par, or if he desires further In
formation on the subject which will serve
to eAlighten him and the people, why not
call upon the Attorney General of the
United States, as he is entitled to do, for an
| opinion on thislaw' Wall street may OBJ
ject, The spectators and holders Of bonds
may object. Nevertheless, have not the
dear people some rights that Democratic
administration is bound to respect' This
| question becomes vital, as the President APP
pears to hesitate about trusting his own
party to leglsate upon it in extra session.